Case 2201876/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In Person on 20 November and assisted by Ms Lord from ELIPS on 13 December 2018. v Ms A Carse - Counsel — 2019
- Case reference
- 2201876/2018
- Decision date
- 9 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Clark Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person on 20 November and assisted by Ms Lord from ELIPS on 13 December 2018.
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on whether the Claimant had nine alleged disabilities before 18 October 2017. The Respondent had already conceded fibromyalgia, and the Tribunal left the issue of the Respondent's knowledge of any disabilities to the full merits hearing. Applying Equality Act 2010 section 6, Schedule 1 and the EHRC Code of Practice, the Tribunal focused on whether each condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect, and disregarded successful treatment where the statute required it.
The Tribunal held that fibromyalgia, vitamin B12 deficiency/pernicious anaemia, temporomandibular disorder and sciatica were disabilities. It accepted that untreated B12 deficiency would cause fatigue affecting mobility and concentration, that untreated TMD would cause headaches and pain interfering with concentration, and that the back condition had substantially affected mobility in late 2015 and recurred so as to satisfy Schedule 1 paragraph 2(2).
It rejected dry eyes, posterior vitreous detachment, sicca symptoms, depression for the relevant period, and carpal tunnel syndrome/tendonitis for the relevant period. For dry eyes and PVD, the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities; sicca symptoms were not established as a distinct disability on the medical and oral evidence; depression was not proved to have reached the threshold while the Claimant was still at work; and carpal tunnel/tendonitis was first diagnosed in March 2018, after the period in issue. No remedy was recorded because the hearing determined disability status only.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Fibromyalgia was conceded by the Respondent and recorded by the Tribunal as a disability for Equality Act 2010 purposes at the material time. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Pernicious anaemia/vitamin B12 deficiency was found to be a disability throughout the Claimant's employment because, if untreated, it would cause fatigue with more than a minor or trivial effect on day-to-day activities. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dry eyes were not proved to amount to a separate disability; the Tribunal found the medical evidence too limited to show a substantial adverse effect on vision or other day-to-day activities if untreated. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Posterior vitreous detachment in the left eye was not accepted as a disability because the condition was described as common, irritating but not serious, and the evidence showed good vision after surgery. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Temporomandibular disorder was found to be a disability because untreated headaches and pain when twisting the neck and head would substantially affect concentration on work-related tasks. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 s.6
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2(2)
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment 2011
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.